Changes

2.  The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

2.  The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

3.  A Wikipedia editor who edits under the names "Nearly Headless Nick" and a phony name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" apparently deleted the entire Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia.  His own user page says he "died on October 31, 1492 and is the resident ghost of Gryffindor tower."  Wikipedia is controlled by editors like these?! <bias?>

3.  A Wikipedia editor who edits under the names "Nearly Headless Nick" and a phony name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" apparently deleted the entire Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia.  His own user page says he "died on October 31, 1492 and is the resident ghost of Gryffindor tower."  Wikipedia is controlled by editors like these?! This reflects a bias towards silliness.

4.  There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia.  In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref>  The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

4.  There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia.  In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref>  The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

6.  The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America.

6.  The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America.

7.  Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.  Many entries read like the National Enquirer.  For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."  That sounds just like the National Enquirer.  Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does. <bias?>

7.  Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.  Many entries read like the National Enquirer.  For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."  That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip.  Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

8.  Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.  On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

8.  Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.  On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

9.  Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

9.  Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

10.  Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value.  For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". <this statement needs to be backed up> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia. <bias?>

10.  Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value.  For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref>  Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

11.  The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger gives an incorrect date for his important trial:  1734, instead of the correct 1735.  The Wikipedia entry also links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law."  Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. <bias?>

11.  The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger gives an incorrect date for his important trial:  1734, instead of the correct 1735.  The Wikipedia entry also links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law."  Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.

12.  For its entry "indentured servitude," Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century.  And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude. <bias?>

12.  For its entry "indentured servitude," Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century.  And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude. Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail.  Wikipedia's entry about the [[indentured servant]] is a massive 1,683 words long.  But it omits any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World!

13.  Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism). <bias?>

13.  Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism). Quantity is not quality.

14.  Within days after someone posted an entry on Wikipedia about Conservapedia, a notice of potential "deletion" was posted on the top of the website.  Those arguing for deletion said that Conservapedia did not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability of websites, because Conservapedia is as yet relatively small and infrequently visited. Those arguing against it said that the arguments for deletion were mere pretexts, and that Wikipedia's true motivation was bias against conservative websites. In the end, an administrator judged that there was rough consensus for deleting the article, and it was deleted. During its existence, the Conservapedia article was edited by various editors, including some not associated with Conservapedia. At various times before it was deleted, the article about Conservapedia was not in accord with the way Conservapedia likes to present itself, and at times exhibited bias both for and against Conservapedia. <bias?>

14.  Within days after someone posted an entry on Wikipedia about Conservapedia, a notice of potential "deletion" was posted on the top of the website.  Those arguing for deletion said that Conservapedia did not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability of websites, because Conservapedia is as yet relatively small and infrequently visited. Those arguing against it said that the arguments for deletion were mere pretexts, and that Wikipedia's true motivation was bias against conservative websites. In the end, an administrator judged that there was rough consensus for deleting the article, and it was deleted. During its existence, the Conservapedia article was edited by various editors, typically by editors hostile to Conservapedia.

15.  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources. <bias?>

15.  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."  

The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."  

16.  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]].  Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia. <bias?>

16.  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]].  Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.

17.  The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.

17.  The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.

18. Wikipedia has voluminous entries that often omit the most important facts.  For example, Wikipedia's entry about the [[indentured servant]] is a massive 1,683 words long.  But it omits any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! <bias?>

18. Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and does not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>

19. Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and does not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref> <bias?>

19. Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.  406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!

20. Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material. 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper! <bias?>

20. Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article spells his wife's name incorrectly, and cites no source for the item. The item has been in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref>  No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.

22. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> This is typical of an anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia.

 

22. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> <bias?>

== References ==

== References ==